Bennet Joins Post-Orlando Gun Safety Filibuster

As the Colorado Independent’s Corey Hutchins reports, Colorado’s senior U.S. Senator Michael Bennet joined with fellow Democrats this week in a day-long filibuster to call attention to the need for enhanced gun safety legislation following last weekend’s terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida:

Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, up for re-election in Colorado this fall, joined 30 of his Democratic colleagues in D.C. for a filibuster about gun laws [Wednesday] following the latest massacre, this time in Orlando, which left a bloody mark as the worst single-gunman mass shooting in U.S. history…

When Bennet took the floor, he talked about the difference between the ways Colorado lawmakers and Congress have reacted to gun violence. Colorado has passed new laws; Congress has not.

“Unlike Washington, in Colorado our legislators actually rose to the occasion to take some tough decisions … they got together and they actually strengthened our background check system. Colorado’s legislature closed the gun show loophole and the internet loophole and required a background check for every gun sale,” Bennet said.

The Senator then ran down the list of what that has meant for Colorado in practice within the past year.

“I want to be precise about this,” he said, noting that in 2015 background checks had blocked 7,714 people from buying guns, a figure that made up about 2 percent of the applications for firearms purchases.

Those within that 2 percent included murderers, rapists, domestic abusers and kidnappers who were denied guns because of the new rules, Bennet said.

“Is there anyone who is going to come to the floor of the United States Senate and say that Colorado is worse off because we’ve kept guns out of the hands of murderers or kidnappers or rapists?” he asked. “This isn’t mythical. This is the actual fact of what’s going on in a Western state that has background checks.” [Pols emphasis]

Bennet’s defense of Colorado’s landmark gun laws is in fact very important to the national debate now taking place over strengthening federal gun safety laws. One of the most critical reforms sought nationally has been standard practice in Colorado in part since 2000 and fully since 2013: universal background checks, both on gun purchases made at gun shows (2000’s post-Columbine Amendment 22) and on most private transfers of guns outside immediate family members (2013’s House Bill 1229).

Colorado’s experience with closing loopholes that allowed weapons to be purchased without a background check has shown that these are workable policies that do result in thousands of gun sales to criminals being stopped–both outright denied purchases, as well as the deterrent effect of having the policy in place. That a Western state like Colorado with its long tradition of gun ownership can successfully implement strict background checks on gun sales shows it can be done nationally–neutralizing a key argument of the gun lobby against them. Politically, Colorado is increasingly a model for passing gun safety legislation and then successfully weathering fierce political reprisals from gun rights zealots. After the high water mark of the 2013 recall elections, the new laws have notably failed to become the cautionary tale the gun lobby wanted them to be.

As desperate as the gun lobby was to stop Colorado’s push to tighten gun laws after the Aurora theater massacre, or failing that to at least contain their spread by exacting a heavy and lasting political toll, their failure is evident with each horrific killing spree. At least for a little while, the conversation inevitably comes back to the easy availability of military weapons that can cut down dozens of people effortlessly. Colorado didn’t want to take the lead on gun safety, it was a responsibility placed on our state by events no one would ever wish for.

When the rest of America is ready, Colorado will still be the model.

63 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Negev says:

    “Is there anyone who is going to come to the floor of the United States Senate and say that Colorado is worse off because we’ve kept guns out of the hands of murderers or kidnappers or rapists?” he asked. “This isn’t mythical. This is the actual fact of what’s going on in a Western state that has background checks.” – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/84613/bennet-joins-post-orlando-gun-safety-filibuster#respond

    Ahem…. murders involving guns in CO increased 3.57% since the laws have been enacted…. just sayin'

    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/database/colorados-gun-control-laws-what-the-data-shows-so-far

     

    • exlurker19 says:

      Oooooh, oooh, oooh, I knew it was you, I knew it was you!!!!  I knew it was you!!!  What do I win?  (Too, too predictable, there, gun hugger.)

    • mamajama55 says:

      Only if you leave out the Century Theater mass shooting stats – twelve murdered, 59 injured in Aurora in 2012!!!! (Because, according to Channel 7, it skews the data).   Oh, no, we wouldn't want to skew the data.

      If we look just at the raw UCR data, including the Aurora theater murders, there were 160 gun crimes in Colorado in 2012, but only 149 in 2014. That would be a 7% decrease.

      My edit: I was looking at total crimes, which are down in 2014. Murders with firearms only decreased one percentage point (92 in 2012, 91 in 2014, with 2013 all over the place).
      Still, it seems whacko to leave the Aurora shooting out of the picture just to make it seem like background checks aren’t working, especially when 7,714 felons, murderers, rapists, and domestic abusers were not able to obtain firearms because of background checks.

       

      Nice try, though, Negev….thanks for playing.

      I won’t even get in a dig at Bennet. Good for him for filibustering.

      • BlueCat says:

        Pretty cute. Exactly the kind of incident that the gun safety regulations were meant to address shouldn't be counted because it skews the data. 

        On the other hand, everything Bennet says and does is terrible according to our dedicated Bennet is the anti-Christ faction so…..devil

        Maybe if congress lifted the ban on funding research into gun violence we could get some data that would actually address what kind of regulations are effective and what kind are not. Since we always have accepted some regulation… even the NRA doesn't insist we should all have personal nukes or that campuses should allow students and faculty to bear shoulder mounted rocket launchers… the only real question is what degree of regulation, not regulation versus no regulation, which is and always has been a nonsense position. 

      • Voyageur says:

        Dammit, MJ, how many times do we have two tell you lefties that reality has a liberal bias!  We don't count the Century murders because they weren't done by a muslim!

        And when forced choose between 33,000 gun deaths a year and the profits of the gun makers, every true American will back the profits.  And they shouldn't be taxed either, because that undermines the Second Amendment.

        Damn facty-whacty wench anyway.

      • Negev says:

        Actually mama, with all due respect, It is you who is skewing the data. Including the Aurora theater murders, murder with gun is up 3.57%. If you take out the 12 murders in 2012, it reduces the number of deaths in 2012. 2014 had no mass murders, and stays the same. This increases 2014 percentage to 7% higher than before the new laws:

        I'll just copy the actual text here:

        But consider that the 2012 data for Colorado includes a mass shooting in an Aurora movie theater, and the other years of Colorado data do not include such a crime. Is that a fair comparison?

        If you subtract the 12 victims of that mass murder, 2012 would have had 80 murders with firearms. That arithmetic would reduce the overall number of murders and also the percentage of murders committed with a gun.

        The new result, if you accept this equation, would reveal that 54 percent of murders in 2012 involved guns. It was 7 percent higher in 2014.

         

         

         

        • mamajama55 says:

          Nope. Can't leave Aurora shootings out just to make it seem like background checks aren't working.  I did include my edit that violent crime (which is what this UCR data set is) is down in 2014 from 2012, but that murders with guns are down only 1.

          That 2% decrease follows the nationwide pattern. And I think it's a good thing that we haven't had any more mass murders in Colorado since 2012! My superstitious side doesn't want me to even type those words, though.

          To explain the overall decrease in violent crime, we should look to Colorado's cannabis laws – violent crime overall is down…by a lot, especially in Denver.

          • Negev says:

            Again. I did not leave out the Aurora shootings. INCLUDING THE AURORA SHOOTINGS MURDER WITH FIREARMS UP 3.57% in CO. 

            I'll quote the UCR data, again:

            If you look at only 2012 and 2014, you’ll see an increase of 3.57 percent in murders involving guns.

             

            • Pseudonymous says:

              That's actually not quite accurate.  Murders that involved firearms as a percentage of total murders increased by 3.57% from 2012 – 2014.  Actual murders involving firearms decreased by 1 (about 1%)– meaning there were fewer fatal shootings, but, of the homicides that occurred, more resulted from firearms, proportionally,than in 2012. In other words, stabbing and bludgeoning went out of style, but we were also a bit less murdery in general.

              • Negev says:

                Agreed. Less people were killed, but more with guns. Not the desired outcome if you ask me….

                • Pseudonymous says:

                  No, one less killed with guns.  I think you're getting confused.

                  So, I have my lovely Sig P239, chambered in .40 S&W, and I pull off a round into my mother-in-law (lovely woman, actually).  That's one murder, one with a firearm.  Nine other folks have the same idea.  That's ten, ten with a gun.  Ten other people have the same urge, but lack resources, so they stab their mothers-in-law instead that year.  That's 20 murders, 10 with a firearm.  50% of murders with a gun.

                  The next year, mothers-in-law are suddenly kinder, gentler people, but the few who aren't are real bears.  9 are killed that year, all with firearms (gotta make sure).  That's 9 murders, 9 with a firearm. 100% of murders with a gun.

                  Your claim, in this scenario, is that murders with guns went up 50 percentage points (or 100%, if you're measuring that way).  But that's not what happened.  Actual, countable murders with firearms went down by 11% (from 10 to 9).  Actual, total murders also went down by 55% (from 20 to 9).  No more crimes, and actually fewer were perpetrated with firearms.

              • mamajama55 says:

                Exactly, Psue. Negev's talking percentage increase, I'm talking raw numbers. Apples and oranges.

                And no need to "shout", Negev: Cheezus doesn't like shouting…except when he's doing it.

                • Negev says:

                  The truth does hurt. More people murdered by guns after the new laws than before. Ouch. 

                  Ignoring the percentage increase by embracing the decrease of crimes does not change the fact that, as a percentage, gun deaths have increased 3.5% in Colorado since the laws were enacted.

                  I do commend your math skills. Countable gun murders went down by 1, when the total number of deaths went down by 11. The percent of total deaths involving firearms is a valid ratio.

                  • Pseudonymous says:

                    If you still believe that's true after reading my last post, I'll make this offer.  Normally, for performing analysis, I'd charge $100, but I'd reduce that by 50% because I was able to help out online.  For you though, I can instead charge my statistical analysis instructional rate, which is $1,000, but includes an 80% online discount.  That's a 30% savings!

                    • Negev says:

                      After reading your last post I am happy your not my analyst. 

                      If you put the raw numbers in instead of your fantasy numbers, it looks a bit different:

                      You have your lovely Sig P239, chambered in .40 S&W, and you pull off a round into my mother-in-law (lovely woman, actually).  That's one murder, one with a firearm.  (91)  other folks have the same idea.  That's (92),  with a gun.  (68) other people have the same urge, but lack resources, so they stab their mothers-in-law instead that year.  That's (160) murders, (92) with a firearm.  57.5% of murders with a gun.

                      The next year, mothers-in-law are suddenly kinder, gentler people, but the few who aren't are real bears.  91 are killed that year, all with firearms (gotta make sure) That's 91 murders, 91 with a firearm. 100% of murders with a gun.(this is where you leave out the second variable) – 

                      To keep the the equation consistent you would think, as an analyst, you would include the other,  (58) "other people have the same urge, but lack resources, so they stab their mothers-in-law instead that year." That's (149) murders, (91) with a firearm. 61.07% of murders with a gun.

                      My claim, in this scenario, is that murders with guns went up 3.57 percentage points, and that's what happened.  Actual, countable murders with firearms went down by 1% (from 92 to 91).  Actual, total murders also went down by 7% (from 160 to 149).  No more crimes, and actually more were perpetrated with firearms.

                       

                       

                    • Pseudonymous says:

                      I tried, but you don't want to understand, or can't.  I used a simplified example to make it easier, but it didn't.  So let's use the numbers in the report, which you insist on clinging to, with an imaginary 2015 year.

                      2014: total murders 149; total with guns 91: percent with guns 61.07%.

                      Let's imagine 2015 as an incredible year of peace with only four murders, and the murderer used a gun in three of them.

                      2015: total murders 4; total with guns 3; percent with guns 75%.

                      By your logic, 2015 is a worse year for gun violence because the percentage of murders with guns increased by 13.93%.  That makes no sense.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      I'm beginning to understand why you thought bernie's medicare plan was self- financingsmiley

                  • BlueCat says:

                    In any case can we agree that funding research into gun violence would be helpful and congress' refusal to fund such research because the NRA objects is stupid? 

                    • Negev says:

                      I'm beginning to think the facts don't seem to matter too much to this crowd, BC. 

                    • Pseudonymous says:

                      The refusal is stupid, but I don't think the research will matter any more than research on climate change, which is excellent, has.

                    • mamajama55 says:

                      I agree. But I doubt that Negev would want to see that research done. The CDC doesn't collect data on all firearms deaths, due to "funding and political concerns". Right now, more young people (<26) die from firearms than from auto accidents. So that number may be low, because the CDC can't collect data.

                      But we insure cars, and require that people train and pass a test to operate cars, so at least the victims can recover damages. I'd like to see guns insured like cars – another reform I don't think that our good buddy Negev would care for. If memory serves, we've already argued that one to a stalemate.

                      Firearm death stats for Denver in 2014 and 2015

                      I couldn't find any statewide firearm death statistics for Colorado for 2015.  However, in the metro Denver area, where I grew up and, I think, both of you live, there were 31 total murders total in Denver in 2014, which was indeed 10 less than 2013. Violent crime has  declined in Denver, probably from legalizing cannabis, and possibly the gun background check law. I didn't find how many of those 31 2014 murders were by firearms.

                      However, there was a spike in homicides in 2015. There were 56 murders in Denver in 2015. 50 of those were civilians killing each other. 37 of those were by gun. 6 more, not included in the 50, were police killing civilians.  The 10% shooting rate by cop is a whole nother discussion. Police Chief Robert White attributes the spike to gang violence, and Black Lives Matter attributes the spike in cop killings to indifference, poor training, and racism. Race is a factor; It's true that when we look at deaths by gun, white men are more  likely to kill themselves, but young men of color are more likely to either kill each other or to be killed by police.

                      So clearly, pot legalization and background check laws are not the entire answer to the complex problem of violent crime in Denver or Colorado. For one thing, death by cop is not included in any of these statistics, apparently. So they're all going to be off.

                      There are rumors that with the legalization of marijuana, gangs are turning to meth and heroin for fun and profit. Maybe that's what's going on. Maybe it's a combination of other factors. But I don't think that going backwards and allowing violent people more unrestricted access to guns is a smart way to approach the problem.

                       

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Reply to Pseudo (out of replies for each response). You're right that research would be disputed and rejected by the NRA crowd just as with climate change and the right but it's still worth doing, just as with climate change. Having quality information is better than not having it.

                      If we do really great in this truth is stranger than fiction election cycle (and who the hell knows what's going to happen) it would be nice if Dem majorities had solid info on which to base proposals.

                      Often proposed solutions that intuitively "feel" like a good idea based on the best of intentions aren't all that effective. Research and hard data are always needed to know the best places to start and to make a convincing case, even to your own party members.

                    • Pseudonymous says:

                      @BlueCat I have no belief that having Democratic majorities will get us meaningful gun control that actually stops mass killings, let alone has any effect on the thousands of murders, suicides, and accidental killings we suffer each year.

                      Having more data is always fine, but we have enough evidence to make real decisions that will actually help significantly reduce gun violence.  Here's some.

                      Banning all semiautomatic firearms, including a mandatory buyback program, banning detachable magazines, and limiting the firearms that are allowed to a capacity of 6 or 7 rounds fully loaded would be a good start.  Also a strict licensing regime, similar to that for scheduled drugs, including licensure, registration, fingerprinting, proper background checks, requiring all sales to be made in person through licensed dealers, limits on ammunition sales, significant waiting periods, etc.  would likely be useful as well.  I don't think our failure to do something about the gun problem in our country is due to us lacking information, it's about loving owning and, quite frankly, a very macho notion of using guns.

                      I don't think research is going to move the needle.  Like in Australia, it's going to take politicians, and judges, willing to lose their jobs.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    Hoping this winds up under Pseudo's reply to me. As per what you say we already know, one thing we know is that the vast majority of gun deaths are not the result of dramatic mass shootings with assault style weapons.  The murder rate in Chicago has little to do with assault style weapons and little to do with legally purchased weapons. Terrorist and hate motivated mass shootings account for a very small slice of the common as dirt national carnage. 

                    I'm not one of those who say that makes all of the gun control measures you site pointless but completely ignoring the reality of how most gun deaths in this country occur and what kinds of weapons are most often responsible does nothing for gun control advocates credibility.

                    Obviously we need to study all aspects of what is contributing to the daily, garden variety slaughter that doesn't get the big coverage an event like Orlando does and won't be helped by the kind of solutions that might help prevent or mitigate another Orlando.

                    The reality is there's an Orlando's worth of gun deaths happening every day without expensive military style weapons or large capacity magazines.

                    We're so awash with guns, there would be no shortage of them available if nobody ever legally sold another one to anybody. Ignoring that won't make it go away.  Not all those who raise those points are idiot gun nuts.

                • Pseudonymous says:

                  Honestly, that looks more like an upside-down cheeldo to me.

                  • Negev says:

                    I tried, but you don't want to understand, or can't.  I used a simplified example to make it easier, but it didn't.  So let's use the numbers in the report, which you insist on clinging to, with an imaginary 2015 year.

                    2014: total murders 149; total with guns 91: percent with guns 61.07%.

                    Let's imagine 2015 as an incredible year of peace with only four murders, and the murderer used a gun in three of them.

                    2015: total murders 4; total with guns 3; percent with guns 75%.

                    By your logic, 2015 is a worse year for gun violence because the percentage of murders with guns increased by 13.93%.  That makes no sense.

                    I get it, really, I do. Imaginary anomaly data will not make sense.

                    If you would be so kind, can you tell me the proper fashion in which to determine the difference in rate of gun murder deaths in relation to total murder deaths from the years 2012 and 2014 using the actual data provided in the report? If you could show your work I would appreciate it – I’m obviously missing something.

                    From the data, what is your perspective, after analysis?

                    • Pseudonymous says:

                      The problem is that you care about how many total murders there are– it's irrelevant.  I've tried to explain that using numbers, but you are telling me I'm wrong.  I can't explain a fundamental problem of understanding using the numbers you fundamentally misunderstand.

                      Let me try one more time.  Let's say we have two years' murder rates as follows:

                      Year 1: 100 total murders, 50 with guns; and
                      Year 2: 1,000 total murders; 500 with guns.

                      Which year is worse for gun violence?  Which shows an increase in gun crime?  Or is the problem the same because, in both years, the rate of murder by firearms is 50%?  The increase in gun crime is shown by the actual increase in the number of crimes committed with guns.  It doesn't matter that all crime increased at the same time.

                      My analysis is simple.  Between 2012 and 2014, murders using firearms decreased by 1.1%, while murders generally decreased by 6.9%.  I doubt either of those numbers is particularly significant.  I certainly wouldn't claim that the gun laws passed in Colorado had any effect based on the data provided.

                      I view the percentage you've been discussing as being reflective of a preference.  As the relative rate of gun-realted murders increases (as it did from 2012 to 2014) it is an indication that people who commit murders prefer guns over other methods.  If that trend were to continue (the percentage going up), at the same time that the number of people being murdered went down exactly as it did from '12 to '14, I'd be pretty happy.  I don't care if all murders are performed with guns if we have very few murders.

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Doesn't look like it would hold up well under pressure.

                    • Negev says:

                       I certainly wouldn't claim that the gun laws passed in Colorado had any effect based on the data provided.

                       

                      Thank you. I appreciate your analysis. I came to the same conclusion utilizing all the wrong methods. I once again commend your mathematical prowess. 

                      I humbly apologize for any perceived accusations of you being wrong.

                    • Pseudonymous says:

                      There's also no evidence the gun laws haven't worked, based on the data provided.  A slight decrease year-over-year in a two year window tells us nothing.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Reply to Pseudo. No evidence that gun laws haven't worked?  I'm a sensible gun control advocate but demands to prove gun control laws haven't worked beg comparison with demands that you prove you aren't from Mars. Perhaps the research you keep telling me is useless and not worth the bother might provide you with something a tad less desperate and lame sounding and a taste more fact based.

  2. MichaelBowman says:

    Nothing to see hear.  Just the Zionist-controlled media playing mind games…

  3. Blackie101 says:

    Just back from a little trip in southern Missouri/northern Arkansas, I noticed one thing that is sort of mind boggling—-people who can barely afford a house/car, who is on some sort of welfare/SNAP, etc., can afford very expensive guns.

    Can someone explain that? 

    • mamajama55 says:

      In two words: gun culture. Wanting to fit in socially with peer group, so making gun ownership a priority. However, a study on what the typical American gun owner looks like found that he is white, male, and high income. "High income" wasn't defined  in the study abstract – you have to buy the full text article for that.

      So your sample may be atypical.

      If it's any comfort to you, high rates of gun ownership are also associated with high rates of accidental deaths by firearms in the two states you mentioned.

  4. mamajama55 says:

    No more reply boxes under these long drawn out nit-picky threads. I have to concur with Psuedo that there isn't any strong evidence that Colorado's gun laws decrease (or increase, sorry, Negev) deaths by firearms in Colorado. The effect is so small, and so variable year to year, that we could argue about it for another 3 days (percentage points or raw #s?) without coming to a conclusion. Police shootings of civilians are not included in these statistics at all, although some of those will eventually be judged as homicides. Some news organizations spin the UCR data to eliminate mass shootings, as it "skews the data".

    We can infer that the background check laws prevented some violent crimes, because

    “…in 2015 background checks had blocked 7,714 people from buying guns, a figure that made up about 2 percent of the applications for firearms purchases.

    Those within that 2 percent included murderers, rapists, domestic abusers and kidnappers who were denied guns because of the new rules, Bennet said.

    Senator Evie Hudak's bill prohibited domestic abusers with an active restraining order from buying guns. This is critical for women's safety, because women are five times more likely to become a homicide victim when their abuser owns a gun.

    We know that legalizing marijuana decreased crime, because the data is so clear and consistent – 10% reduction in Denver alone in the first five months after legalization was implemented. Even Hickenlooper, who initially worked against Amendment 64, has had to concede that legalizing pot brought down crime and brought in money.  The gun laws also came into effect halfway through 2013, with mixed effects. Gun murders in Colorado were down by 4 in 2013 (88), up 3 in 2014 (91). We don't have statewide data for 2015 of gun murders.

    For Denver, the trends are :

    2013 (41 murders) 2014 (31 murders) 2015 (50 murders including 37 by gun, and 6 more by police with guns)  Black Lives Matter and other groups are protesting – they want some of these deaths to be ruled as homicides and the perpetrators prosecuted.

    To Bluecat's point, we don't even have accurate data, because the CDC doesn't collect accurate data on firearm deaths. Funding this research has been blocked by the gun lobbyists.  Even the data geek's dream site, wonder.cdc.gov , gets very granular about impacts from every possible disease, but its subset of information about violent crime, The National Violent Death Reporting System , only contains data from 17 cooperating states,and only up to 2013.

    So nobody is going to be able to use statistics to prove anything about whether or not the gun laws are saving lives in Colorado; we just have to make inferences based on the number of violent criminals caught by background checks. And we have to use common sense, which would indicate that, following national trends, more guns and laxer laws = more deaths, per the Brady Center graphic above this comment.

    Common sense would also dictate that if the AR15 is the weapon of choice for mass murderers, that banning, buying back, prohibiting sales, monitoring, licensing, insuring would all be measures that could prevent access to these deadliest weapons. Without increasing mental health funding and access, and building communities, restricting access will not stop mass shootings, in my opinion. They're both part of the solution to a complex problem.

    • Voyageur says:

      So it's not enough that you want facts.  Now, you resort to common sense!  Have you no shame , Ma'am?  At long last, have you no shame?

    • Negev says:

      Its interesting that when I use ratio/percentages to show unpalatable guns stats its "skewing the data", however when you use them to show a decrease in crime due to marijuana legalization its "because the data is so clear and consistent".

      Kinda like not judging all Muslims for the actions of a few lunatics, but all gun owners for the actions of a few lunatics. 

       

       

       

      • mamajama55 says:

        Hijole, Negev.  Look at the City of Denver's crime reports for 13-14 yourself. They use raw numbers to generate percentage changes. The issue we had with your "skewing" is that of course the percentage of gun murders went up when the numbers (sample size) went down.

        And, as I've exhaustively pointed out, it's not possible to come up with real conclusions from crime statistics in Colorado and Denver, because:

        * the data isn't complete – because the gun lobby keeps it from being complete. You notice that there are only 17 states in the Brady graphic above? Those are the states which voluntarily report violent crime data to the CDC/ NVDRS database. Colorado isn't one of those states.

        * Other factors influence numbers of yearly homicides- mass shootings, police killing civvies, gangs in Denver perhaps moving to non-marijuana business models which may be more violent, poor community policing, poverty, unemployment, and who knows what else?

        Do you disagree with the Brady graphic that more guns plus laxer laws = more gun deaths? If you disagree, upon what basis?

        I've spent all the time I'm going to spend on here this a.m. Have fun.

        • Voyageur says:

          There's also no evidence the gun laws haven't worked, based on the data provided.  A slight decrease year-over-year in a two year window tells us nothing. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/84613/bennet-joins-post-orlando-gun-safety-filibuster#comment-609722

          As Pseudo Psagely  observes, you can't really prove the negative.  If only we had a parallel universe with everything exactly the same except Colorado gun laws.  Failing that, I think MJ nailed it: use your common sense:

          You're in a dark alley with a 140-pound spittle-dripping psychopath.   

          Would you rather your puny adversary be armed with

          A: an AR-15 assault rifle and 10 30 round magazines, a brace of Glock 17s each with three 17 round magazines, and  a Nerf ball or

          B: only the Nerf ball?

          Assault rifle and a brace of Glocks or just a Nerf ball?   What to do, what to do?

          So hard to choose when you're a gun nut trying desperately to defend the indefensible.

          Time's up!

          Too late.   While you were pondering, the Psycho, who missed all 30 rounds of his first volley because of his meth jitters, fixed his bayonet and ran you through.  [Sorry, Negev, forgot to warn you about the bayonet.  There are some things you have to figure out for your self.]

          Side bet with MJ:  Five bucks says this dweeb tries to quibble out by maintaining that a true assault rifle is fully automatic while the AR-15 is only semi-automatic, which proves I don't know what I'm talking about.   No true gun nut can pass up the chance to duck the issue with faux expertise.

          [Author's note:  This writer is certified as expert by the United States Army with the M-14, M-16 and hand grenade.  He served on the staff of the United States Military Academy at West Point during the Vietnam War.]

           

           

          • Negev says:

            I with take the Nerf ball hands down. 

            Now, since you are an expert at multiple weapons systems and versed in in wartime training, lets put this common sense you speak of to task:

            The same 140 pound spittle-dripping psychopath unfortunately got the AR and glocks and is coming for you, what would you rather have:

            Equal or superior firepower (still have those grenades?) or,

            a Nerf ball.

            Thank you for your service.

            • Voyageur says:

              Excellent choice. As to your follow-on scenario, no problem. I drop the dweeb at 300 meters with one shot from My classic M-1 Garand. Remember, this was in a dark alley. His nerf ball was soaked in white phosphorous and lit him up like a Chrismas tree. Beyond 100 meters, . 30 caliber is far more accurate than ,.223 and at300 meters he’s virtually disarmed.

        • Negev says:

          Mama, you know I love ya, but your asking me if I disagree with the Brady graphic immediately after concluding that gun data is not complete, and that other factors influence the number of homicides, and the gun lobby keeps if from being complete.  

          That being said, I don't disagree. I found another, equally convincing graph:

          Chart: Swimming pool drowning death rates by state. U.S. 1999-2007.

           

          Whats astonishing is, similar to the Brady graphic, it appears more people drown in places that have more pools. 

          • Voyageur says:

            When swimming pools are outlawed, only outlaws will drown in swimming pools!

            • Curmudgeon says:

              How many mass murderers drag a swimming pool into an elementary school? 

              • Negev says:

                Again, just to keep you up to speed in the conversation the graph mamma originally posted and the follow up pool graph have uh, well, nothing whatsoever to do with mass shooting.  

              • BlueCat says:

                Not to equate swimming pools with guns. For one thing when used as directed guns are supposed to kill. But if everyone is going to bandy about total numbers of deaths via gun violence, once again the overwhelming majority of them not the result of high profile mass killings or involving assault weapons, than we may as well do the same for drowning deaths. So here they are .

                From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day.1 An additional 332 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2

                About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.1 For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1

                More than 50% of drowning victims treated in emergency departments (EDs) require hospitalization or transfer for further care (compared with a hospitalization rate of about 6% for all unintentional injuries).1,2 These nonfatal drowning injuries can cause severe brain damage that may result in long-term disabilities such as memory problems, learning disabilities, and permanent loss of basic functioning (e.g., permanent vegetative state).3,4

                http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

                I'm not saying this proves we shouldn't have gun regulation. I think we should. I'm simply pointing out that we can all throw raw numbers at each other to defend our respective points of view. Another number? For the past 5 years suicides have outpaced homicides. Pretty sure not many assault weapons are used in those.

                Let's not pretend it's so cut and dried simple. It's not. 

          • mamajama55 says:

            Look again at the Brady graph. There's a 3rd variable – strict or lax gun laws. Hawaii and six other states have gun ownership of over 25%, but strict laws. Hence, their gun deaths are low.

            BTW, I was in error about the reason only 18 states are listed. That's a coincidence, but nothing to do with the 17 states that report firearms deaths to the NVDRS. Colorado is one of the 17 states that report to the NVDRS. Brady has their own system of ranking states based on gun laws.

  5. mamajama55 says:

    Senator Bennet gets low marks from voters of color on the Joy Reid show today.  His best result was "polling", but the perception is that he's not that good on issues, and caters to white voters.  The transcript of her panel discussion with Mr. Phillips will probably be posted later today.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.